Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Article is not without problems, and current title, while an improvement, may not be perfect either, but the consensus seems to be that there are enough good references to indicate that this subject is noteworthy. Fram (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 wars of independence[edit]

"The 2008 wars of independence are a series of speculated conflicts..." that have no place in Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. Possibly merge, in limited part, to some article related to the status of Kosovo. Even if renamed to e.g. "Geopolitical implications of the possible independence of Kosovo", this is not a notable topic for a dedicated article. Sandstein (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed the title since that seems to be the only issue anyone actually has a problem with and is the only part that could even be considered speculative. The rest of the article is citing events that have all happened or statements that have already been made. Also, it is a very notable topic which has been discussed in all kinds of news reports. Each potential conflict and their link to Kosovo's independence has a source either in References or External links.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much speculation in the future. None of us amateur Wikipedia gurus have the competence or qualifications to make these predictions. Hidden POV that recognition of Kosovo independence will start a (negative?) domino effect. --RenniePet (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...thereby also violating WP:SYNTH. Sandstein (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That makes no sense. How is there any unpublished synthesis? Are you going along with this ridiculous notion of a hidden agenda?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speculation in the article at all. Point to anything, ANYTHING, that could be called speculation. You can't because there is no speculation going on in this article.

Also how can any one possibly address what you consider to be a "hidden" POV. It seems like this is something you could bring out regardless of whether you have any basis for it. Recognition of Kosovo independence expected to start a domino effect is substantiated by links provided in the article. Some consider war negative that's for certain. However, is saying, for instance, that Taiwan declaring independence would be met with a Chinese attack POV against Taiwanese independence or just saying what is an expected and widely reported outcome? Some people would consider independence from a nation that tried to commit genocide against your people worth the costs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that expectation in some circles is established by the sources. But I could just as easily create an article called Possible wars of independence for currently oppressed peoples or something similar, and find additional sources to establish that that was a widely-held view. Article organization and titles need to be NPOV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except this comes from one thing, Kosovo has said they wil declare independence and, according to them, a date is already set. Every major news reports and every comments from those directly involved says it will be in the first few months of this year, possible after the February 3rd run-off election or sooner. So it is more than a widely held view, but an overwhelmingly expected, maybe even scheduled, future event.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration of independence is likely to occur, yes. But this article isn't about the declaration of independence, it's about a number of (generally undesirable) events that some have speculated might follow the expected declaration of independence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the article a little harder. Srpska's Prime Minister said he might have to have a referendum because of "popular demand" and there are reports they're already printing out the ballots. The head of Russia's two chambers of parliament have declared their intent to consider recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Armenia's foreign minister has said they cannot accept Kosovo getting independence, while Nagorno-Karabakh is denied their chance. This is not speculation, but comments from officials of the governments of these countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My concern is that considering all of these events from the perspective of their (possible) relationship with a Kosovar declaration of independence is only one angle from which they can be considered, and a POV one at that (just as considering it from the oppressed peoples angle I mentioned above would be a single, well-sourced, POV angle). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't POV, because the people involved are saying this would be a precedent and one they intend to use. Again, I suggest you read the article. This isn't an article about the possibility of their independence and a resulting conflict alone, but specifically those events in relation to Kosovo's independence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep, but just barely. The topic *is* discussed in the media, and as such merits an article, but maybe it should be subsection of an article on Kosovan independence or something like that...? Either way, the content is borderline legitimate in my book, so either keep or merge are okay by me, I suppose. —Nightstallion 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The speculations are sourced and may as well be true but what is actually done here is in opposition with WP:SYNTH. And I think that it is basically impossible for this article to be totally NPOV written. However, I assume that separate cases can be mentioned in corresponding articles about the regions that want to separate. --Tone 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to separatism. Alternatively, drop the "2008" part and make this an article about separatist movements, without speculating about what existing separatists have made for their new year's resolutions. Mandsford (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the title, it's been changed. Also there is, again, no speculation, it's all statements from different officials about what they will do.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge with separatism would be too vague, this article is specifically about separatism that might be triggered by Kosovo independence. Nikola (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kosovo status process anything with any detail is just guesswork at this point. for all we know it could go perfectly peacefully --T-rex 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about what relevant people said might happen, not about what will happen. No crystal ball here. Nikola (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split, Merge, etc. The biggest problems with this article are the title (specifically the inclusion of the 2008) and the WP:SYNTH. Split the article up into Independence movements in the former Soviet Union and Independence movements in the Balkans. Merge the content on North Cyprus into Cyprus, and the Western Sahara stuff into Western Sahara. The article as it exists now just isn't cohesive enough, and is too much a collection of tangentially-related topics. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the title has been changed. Look at the article's title again. Also they are deeply interlinked, you can't possibly ignore that, the External links make this clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it stands now, this is a very useful article, with potential to be substantially expanded. Nikola (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark The question of whether or not there is a "hidden point of view" involved here keeps popping up, and those who want the article kept keep stedfastly denying it. I will still claim that 100% of those who want to keep this article are against Kosovo's (possible) indepdence and (possible) international recognition of that (possible) independence. For example, the latest Keep voter has on his/her user page that he/she is a native Serbian speaker and, "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohia". Fair enough, and that user's vote is as good as anyone elses. (Worth a lot more than mine, in fact, as that user has been on Wikipedia much longer than me and contributed much, much more than me.) But I still think it emphasises that there is a hidden POV here. The article is indirectly saying, "If event A occurs, then the following really bad things, B, C, D and E, are going to happen. So don't let event A occur, OK?" That is not the job of Wikipedia, in my opinion. --RenniePet (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was the authors' intention or not (and I assume that it wasn't), I agree that User:RenniePet raises a valid concern about the effect of keeping the article as is. By linking these potential military conflicts specifically to the possibility of Kosovar independence (and indeed, building the article around that link), it definitely creates a POV situation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the article is incomplete the way it is now. What about Basque, Catalonia, Transnistria, Scotland, Belgium and similar regions where some support for independence or separation has recently been shown (to various degrees)? I suppose the debate is leaning to a conclusion that the information are valid and should be somewhere on WP, just not in an article like this. Besides, even the present title is highly speculative. --Tone 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incompletion is not grounds for deletion, it rather calls for completion. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mainly referring to potential crises, since the name's been changed again, resulting from Kosovo's independence and the use of it as a precedent. Basque, Catalonia, and Transnistria are all potentially going to use the precedent, but they also are not likely to result in conflicts or a crisis of any sort. Scotland, Walloons, and Flanders probably wouldn't even use it as a precedent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that not every conflict is linked to Kosovo, I just removed Western Sahara from the article, but the article as it is now is about conflicts which were linked by relevant people to Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I'm pro-Kosovan independence (though neither Kosovan or member of any other independence-seeking group seeking to benefit from the event) and borderline in favour of keeping this article. —Nightstallion 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against Kosovo's independence, albeit I'm against the methods being used to achieve it. It seems there is a general assumption of bad faith with this article that just isn't there. The Kosovo precedent has been discussed in British, American, Chinese, Russian, Turkish, and Canadian news among others. Many of these areas are feared to erupt into conflict if they follow the precedent of Kosovo and no instance before have such threats been made to such a degree and level. Even Javier Solana of the EU has expressed concerns about the consequences of Kosovo's independence.[1] Does he have an agenda against Kosovo? The danger is not even in Kosovo's independence, but how people seek to exploit it, in particular Russia and Serbia. Russia has been threatening the West with this for years now, warning it would create a dangerous precedent, but at the same time implying they'd act on that precedent for their own gain. So really it's not a warning but a threat. Arguing this somehow is not notable is just baffling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off topic here, but isn't this a sort of moral dilemma, the "if you do the right thing I'll make you regret it" situation, where (over-simplified, as found in comic books) the coward lets himself be bullied into submission, in contrast to the hero, who does the right thing and then overcomes the bully as well.

Another point, if this article is considered OK, how about articles like, "Potential downfall of the American republic if Hillary is elected", or "Potential arrival of Armageddon if we don't all shape up and burn Richard Dawkins at the stake". --RenniePet (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your first comment, I hope you're talking about the geopolitical situation and not the article, because then it would seem like a personal attack. As to the second comment I think you're taking this much further then it needs to be taken. There are articles where potential conflicts are mentioned and speculation around them referenced because such speculation is common. For instance, even though there's never been a nuclear war between India and Pakistan a mention of the possibility is made in the section on nuclear war. Also mentioned is the possibility of Taiwan's independence bringing about a nuclear war between China and the U.S., surely that is a much more severe and frightening a prospect than anything mentioned in this article. However, these are events commonly speculated on or expected in the event one of those things should happen. Indeed, a possible Sino-American War is mentioned in the article on Taiwan independence. It's not bias to say a predicted event has been said to have a predicted outcome or to have an article on that alone. The spirit of the policy seems to be aimed more at preventing original research rather than articles on predicted events. In general WP:CRYSTAL isn't even needed if writers stick to the policies of no original research and verifiability, which this article does. Also, it is not even an article on a predicted event, but about an expectation of an event, meaning this is not describing or saying what will happen in the future, but what various people involved have said or believe will happen. In a way this is similar to the article on World War III, which does mention what it is believed would happen or how it may happen, but never makes a prediction or asserts it will happen, but only references the expectations of reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the comic-book morality comment. What set me off was this: "Russia has been threatening the West with this for years now, ... So really it's not a warning but a threat." Now, what I was trying to say is something like this: We have situation A, and we can support what we think is right in situation A. Or, we can take into account, or choose not to take into account, that supporting what we think is right in situation A may result in someone carrying out nasty threats. My (very poorly expressed) point is that (usually) the best course of action is to support what you think is right in situation A, and then do what you can to change the behavior of the threatener. Letting oneself be influenced to not support what you think is right in this situation will not result in any final good situation. --RenniePet (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the comment about Dawkins amusing, and I hope you don't consider the first one a personala attack. Indeed, the possible wars between Pakistan and India or PRC and Taiwan are mentioned but in an appropriate context, there is no article dedicated entirely to a possible war. And there shouldn't be one. --Tone 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the PRC and Taiwan it might be legitimate since it is an issue dealt with deeply by various fictional novels, analysts, and military experts. It wouldn't be quite like this since there are no serious actions in the direction of a conflict and so any talk of a future conflict would focus more on the idea solely as a matter of interest, rather than as a present international issue based on an almost certain event, in so far as an upcoming event can be certain to happen. Here, however, a possible conflict is an issue hanging over the situation and movements and threats being made in that direction all of it centering around the following weeks and Kosovo's independence which is, honestly, universally expected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I don't think that someone's vote should be worth more just because he spent more time on Wikipedia (not counting newbies obviously). Nikola (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete under whatever - This is an ungainly combination of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH violations, all piled up in an unsubtle, WP:NPOV-violating effort to say, "If the Kosovars are allowed to break away, the world will regret it." --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not CRYSTAL because it does not try to predict a future event, but only gives information about existing predictions, it is not SYNTH because it nowhere makes a new fact of other available facts, and it does not violate NPOV (and even if it would, it is not grounds for deletion). Nikola (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it would be nice if someone could point out any speculation or synthesis. It keeps being said, but I can't find anything and I've seen some pretty ridiculous explanations of what counts as synthesis.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Synthesis" includes just such actions as the creation of this article: taking a number of different articles, sources, etc. and saying, "These are all due to this other thing here"! We are not saying it is not notable; we are saying you don't have any sources for the claim. You may be wrong or you may be right, but the conclusion is still not sourced to a reliable source other than yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. (And just because blustering politicans say they will or won't do something, doesn't mean it will happen.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it is that there simply can not be reliable sources for (possible) future events, not until after they've happened. Come back in a year or two and write an article (with the undertone of "I told you so", if you must) where you do document what really actually happened. --RenniePet (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except by the same token any mention of prospective membership in international organizations would have to be removed. Mentioning the possibility of war if Taiwan declares independence would have to be removed. What you're arguing would also basically mean not having any scientific polls on elections included in articles. All of these are referring to possible future events. None of them are brought up as being invalid under WP:CRYSTAL and that's because some articles or sections on future events are indeed valid if they are something that has been discussed thoroughly and is verifiable speculation. Here we're not even talking about speculation, but statements from government officials in those concerned areas saying what they will do or plan to do if Kosovo declares its independence as it has consistently stated it will and not years from now, but this year, sometime in these first three months. It is certainly notable, definitely not unverified speculation, and is not biased against Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep saying to look at the article and look at the External Links, but it seems you insist on ignoring them. Almost all of the sources explicitly mention Kosovo and its connection to all of them. Javier Solana, the High Representative of the EU himself mentioned this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you keep telling me to read the article and the references. And what I do is I read the title of the article, and I say to myself, "Oh dear, an article that contains speculation about the future, with pretentions of authoritativeness (it is on an encyclopedia), do I really want to waste my time on this? Sorry, no." I mean, if I want to read speculative stuff about the future I'd rather grab a good science fiction book.

And I still maintain that because the article concentrates on negative possible consequences of "the Kosovo precedent" that it is fundamentally POV. One could just as easily (and hopefully with greater accuracy) write an article entitled "Potential advantages resulting from the Kosovo precedent", or "Expected new world order resulting from the Kosovo precedent". In fact, I'd love to write an article saying that "the Kosovo precedent" will eventually result in every group of people on Earth being allowed to decide for themselves if they want to form their own country, and which kinds of associations they want to form with neighboring countries, and which international organizations they want to be a member of. But it would be a very POV article, and totally unsuited for Wikipedia.

So what I'm saying is that to remove the POV element of the present article it should present a neutral perspective with both positive and negative (possible) results of "the Kosovo precedent". But I'm also saying that even with the POV problem removed, the resulting article would still not be suitable for Wikipedia because it would be too much speculation and not enough hard facts. --RenniePet (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're joking about not reading it, because if you aren't reading the article you've just invalidated your whole opinion. It contains no speculation whatsoever. None of the officials are speculating about what might happen, they're saying what will happen or what they intend to do all of it operating around what is already scheduled to happen, Kosovo's independence. Saying it's a negative article because it says something that many in favor of independence have said, such as Javier Solana, is absurd. There's no POV here. It's not speculation either. It is a subject of speculation, but the article is not itself speculation, because it only includes hard facts.

You may think it is negative, but it's not my decision to make it so, it's just how things are. Russia has made threats which ultimately mean Kosovo's independence is likely to have negative consequences. No one has really said it would have positive advantages, except maybe for Kosovo, even the people trying to make it happen. They've insisted it's not a precedent, but Russia isn't biting. It has been said time and again by Russian officials at all levels that they consider Kosovo a precedent. This has been said by officials elsewhere as well such as in Armenia. Independence for those regions would quite literally mean war, a war that probably wouldn't happen if Kosovo didn't get independence. It's not POV or any negativity, it's just what is the expected outcome. Just like Taiwan's independence most likely means war with China.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not joking. I read the title of the article, and that is enough for me to decide both a) I'm not interested in reading the rest, and b) this is not for Wikipedia.

The title of the article makes it clear that it is about the future. When you get as old as me you will (maybe) become sufficiently cynical that you know that everything about people's promises about what they will do in the future is speculation. What people say they will do in the future and what they actually do are two very different things.

The title has used the words "wars", "military conflicts" and "crisis". If that isn't negative, I don't know what is.

So that's good enough for me; it's people's claims about people's actions in the future, i.e., speculation, and it's negative, i.e., POV. Case closed. --RenniePet (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're absolutely serious it means you haven't read the article and so your opinion is invalid. Read the article thoroughly, then come back and give your opinion, until you do, your opinion is not valid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case this article stays, to prevent it from appearing a POV, there should be mentioned that several UN people and state leaders (I can't source this from my head but anyway) have expressed an opinion that the Kosovo case is a Sui generis and that it can't serve as a precedent. So there are both views covered. However, I would still prefer having a summary of this article in the Kosovo status process article or maybe another one, more suitable, instead of having it as a separate one. Regarding earlier comment, saying that Basque, Catalonia, and Transnistria are all potentially going to use the precedent, but they also are not likely to result in conflicts or a crisis of any sort. Scotland, Walloons, and Flanders probably wouldn't even use it as a precedent. is a great speculation. How can you say that for example independence of Basque would not cause problems? (I can add Kurdistan to the list and there are even more regions... sui generis each of them, according to some politicians...) Just by the way, my personal opinion about Kosovo process has nothing to do with the standpoint I am defending in case of this article. --Tone 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those sort of references too and thought about including them when I first created the article. At the time the title was different, but with the changing around since it was created it would certainly fit well now. On Basque and Catalonia, there is no way to verify such a claim linked to Kosovo, is more my point and no indication that there would be any conflict over it. I don't think any Spanish official has said anything to the effect that they'll invade the Basque country if it declares independence. However, I believe there are articles which have said it could create a snowball effect reducing Europe to a bunch of statelets, certainly this would be something relevant. Also the general issue of irredentism could be addressed. For instance, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria have talked about joining Russia after independence, Nagorno-Karabakh has may merge with Armenia, Kosovo with Albania, and Srpska with Serbia. It's also believed this could create an irredentist situation with Russian-speaking regions like Crimea.

Also the issue often brought about how this could create a problem is the territorial integrity vs. self-determination issue unresolved by the U.N. I had thought of putting a stub on this because there's a great wealth of background to it and many areas untouched, but it was pretty large just with what I did. Basically on that it's been said since Serbia does not acquiesce to Kosovo's independence it would be overriding it's territorial integrity in favor of Kosovo's self-determination, both technically recognized under international law, this was why it's been referred to as a precedent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Analysts and news media have speculated on potential military conflicts " the very definition of crystal ball. DGG (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The administrator who decides the fate of this article should also check out the talk page for the article itself, where there are also several Delete opinions. --RenniePet (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A fascinating, important topic... for another web site that can accept Original Crystal Ball Research. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research because everything is referenced and it's not Crystal ball because there's no speculation and everything is verifieable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but must be renamed. The main problem is the title of the article, 2008 wars of independence is of coure pure nonsense. Having said that, the topic in itself is frequently discussed in media in relation to the pending Kosovo solution, so the topic is both notable and possible to source. So keep the article, but change the title. JdeJ (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in order not to violate WP:SYNTH and/or WP:NPOV this could be retitled to something more neutral such as Potential effects of the independence of Kosovo and include a more balanced view of the issue - but then of course it would still violate WP:CRYSTAL. Though well researched and written, it's clearly pushing an agenda. Teleomatic (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not violating any of these policies. There is no synthesis, no bias, and no speculation. People supporting independence or who generally think it's a good thing have commented about the possibility of a precedent and problems resulting from it. There's nothing negative against Kosovo's independence in the article, there's no speculation, and there's no synthesis. Please read the article before you give an opinion. This is an article about a subject which has been frequently discussed in the media and brought up by some of the most high-ranking diplomats and government officials. This is a classic international law conflict between self-determination and territorial integrity if self-determination wins out, which all indications are that it will because Kosovo will declare its independence and be recognized by the West, it will set a legal precedent. This precedent would be used in many frozen conflicts throughout the world.

There is precisely zero speculation in the article. All of it is government officials saying they will see it as a precedent and use it as a precedent, and others saying if that happens they'll use force.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-ranking diplomats and government officials often make comments in the media about what they might do under certain circumstances - but select comments about possible future events are not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. If self-determination occurs, information about the precedent that it may set and the possible crisis that may ensue will make an excellent article once it is widely regarded as a precedent, and once the anticipated crises do occur. As for now, this remains an excellent, but unencyclopedic, news analysis of what some people speculate will be a potential political and humanitarian crisis that could someday occur. Teleomatic (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Kosovo declaring independence is not something that simply "might" happen, but is something that will happen. Only a few overly hopeful Serbs actually think Kosovo won't get its independence in these first three months. So what these officials are saying is what they intend to do when it happens, not speculating on what might happen.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that Kosovo’s independence is as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow, can you see how reporting people's intentions that if carried out as promised (once this inevitable future event occurs) could then potentially cause a crises does not make for an encyclopedic entry? Teleomatic (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what is being said in the article. What's being said is simply that the potential exists and is widely reported. It also details comments and statements indicating the strength of the potential. Also with the word crises now it isn't even as uncertain. Surely there will be crises in Kosovo and other regions even if there is no military conflict, though all indicators say there will be some conflict. In fact, with regards to Russia and Georgia it could be an all-out war since there's lots of bad blood there and just one thing tipping over throws it all into a tailspin. All the same it is certainly going to cause problems, whether you want Kosovo to have independence or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You’re basically proposing that a potential crisis that may result from a future precedent is a valid subject for an encyclopedia entry. This is where there is a difference of opinion. I maintain that Wikipedia is not the place for detailing the problems that may ensue from future events. This topic is better suited for Wikinews. Teleomatic (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't even like that as Kosovo's independence is an idea in itself and doing so without Serbia's consent, favoring Kosovo's self-determination over Serbia's territorial integrity, is an idea that has been around and it would be considered a legal precedent, despite some trying to say it is a unique case. Kosovo may be considered a continuation of the break up of Yugoslavia, but the unrecgonized states Russia has called for recognizing would be like a continuation of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Srpska would also be like a continuation of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Other areas, like Western Sahara and Taiwan could be considered as a continuation of decolonization. Ultimately the legal precedent applies. What this article is about is how that precedent could affect other regions. It's certainly legitimate. If there were an article dedicated to the Kosovo precedent, then maybe this could be merged with it, but right now there is no truly suitable article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name is OK. Article well sourced. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.